Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62018TN0574

    Case T-574/18: Action brought on 28 September 2018 — Agrochem-Maks v Commission

    IO C 427, 26.11.2018, p. 93–93 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    26.11.2018   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 427/93

    Action brought on 28 September 2018 — Agrochem-Maks v Commission

    (Case T-574/18)

    (2018/C 427/122)

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Applicant: Agrochem-Maks d.o.o. (Zagreb, Croatia) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

    Defendant: European Commission

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    —

    annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1019; (1)

    —

    order the defendant to pay its own costs and to bear applicant’s costs in the present proceedings.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

    1.

    First plea in law, alleging violation of the administration’s obligation to give reasons pursuant to Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

    2.

    Second plea in law, alleging violation of Article 6(f) of or point 2.2. of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 (2) and of the proportionality principle, in relation to the alleged data gaps concerning the active substance for which approval is sought.

    3.

    Third plea in law, alleging the erroneous application of the precautionary principle with regard to the said alleged data gaps/issues that could not be finalised for the purposes of the risk assessment.

    4.

    Fourth plea in law, alleging violation of Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 with regard to the identification of high risk with regard to aquatic organisms.

    (1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1019 of 18 July 2018 concerning the non-renewal of approval of the active substance oxasulfuron, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (OJ 2018 L 183, p. 14).

    (2)  Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (OJ 2009 L 309, p. 1).

    Top